mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (01/14/91)
Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of
physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly?
Will this require a ROM upgrade?
Will IIci ROMs work in a IIcx for most intents and purposes?
If the ROMs in a IIcx are not 32 bit clean, can they be loaded to RAM
and patched around using the PMMU? Has any third party company
thought about this [the VIRTUAL people come to mind.]
Can someone help with some answers? Thanks.
--
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, Home of the Wrist Pad[tm] Plus!
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046
Net: mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdcjohnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (01/14/91)
In article <12925@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes... >Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of >physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly? > >Will this require a ROM upgrade? I have heard this over and over again -- it is a good question. So far, I don't think that there has been a decent response from Apple. Naively, it would seem that whatever is lacking could be taken care off by an init. Isn't this what 32-Bit QuickDraw does for the Mac II and the IIx? On a 20-meg IIcx it seems like very few people would opt to PAY for a 32-bit clean ROM if an init could patch the nasty bits ... What's the big deal? Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
jbr0@cbnews.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) (01/15/91)
In article <11707@goofy.Apple.COM> Greg@AppleLink.apple.com (Greg Marriott) writes: > In article <12925@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > >Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of > >physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly? > > > >Will this require a ROM upgrade? > >System 7 will not give IIcx users access to more than 8Mb of physical. It >will not take the place of a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade. [...] > >Greg Marriott >Apple Computer, Inc. That's fine. I'll gladly buy a ROM swap if Apple will offer one and the price is reasonable. So the question is, will Apple offer us one and can it be bought for a price with less than 3 digits in it? -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk
bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com (Mike Bell) (01/18/91)
In article <13076@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I have received mail from a number of people including Apple employees >about the IIcx ROM question. > >The general concensus is: > > - A ROM swap will be needed and is the cleanest way to make 32 bit > mode possible for Mac IIcx owners. > >This raises other harder questions: > > - How many people need this capability? > > - Is it worth Apple's while to do it? > > - Could existing ROMs (i.e. IIci) be used, perhaps in conjuction > with an INIT that fixed dependencies? > >Thanks for your help. > >Marty > >-- >Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, Home of the Wrist Pad[tm] Plus! >126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 >Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 >Net: mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdc LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... Mike -- ******************************************************************************** Mike Bell Internet: bell@opus.wizards.dupont.com Senior Engineer CSNet: BELLMA%ESVAX@dupont.com DuPont CR&D Applelink: D2747 Advanced Computer Technology Group MacBLITZ..... When you feel the need for speed.......... ******************************************************************************** --
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan17.180702.9923@pyro.ei.dupont.com> bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com (Mike Bell) writes: In article <13076@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I have received mail from a number of people including Apple employees >about the IIcx ROM question. > >The general concensus is: > > - A ROM swap will be needed and is the cleanest way to make 32 bit > mode possible for Mac IIcx owners. [...] LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly because of the on-board video? -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
bdugan@teri.bio.uci.edu (Bill Dugan) (01/19/91)
> [...] > > LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that > a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but > does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... > >There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less >compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having >compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly >because of the on-board video? > My friend claims to have used IIfx ROMs in a IIcx, but then supposedly many applications would crash because of compatibility problems with the IIfx. But at least it works. bill
yossie@fnal.fnal.gov (Yossie Silverman) (01/19/91)
My impression, from having worked with a few MacIIci's, is that the main difference between those that run most anything (without any problems) and those that run with lots of problems, is the video board/internal. I plan on buying a board for my home machine very soon, to use instead of the internal circuitry. I am thinking of a RasterOps 386 ($799 at one place I called!) - Yossie --- yossie@fnal.fnal.gov; yossie@fnccf.bitnet What did the Caspian Sea? - Saki
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) (01/19/91)
yossie@fnal.fnal.gov (Yossie Silverman) writes: >My impression, from having worked with a few MacIIci's, is that the main >difference between those that run most anything (without any problems) and >those that run with lots of problems, is the video board/internal. I plan >on buying a board for my home machine very soon, to use instead of the >internal circuitry. I am thinking of a RasterOps 386 ($799 at one place I ^^^ Urrrghh! Please, it's the RasterOps 364. 386 brings up memories of some horrible chip architecture from some "other" company, which fortunately has little to do with the Mac world. By the way, isn't the 364 likely to get cheaper and cheaper now that the RasterOps STV? has superceded it? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "She's got a tongue like an electric eel, and she likes the taste of a man's tonsils!" - Rik Flashheart
nwc1@quads.uchicago.edu (einsturzende neubaten) (01/19/91)
Are there ROM SIMM's available then? One which could expand an SE/30? I would guess that this is not economically feasible, but still... extra features, or only incompatibility? 'later!
woods@convex.com (Darrin Woods) (01/23/91)
> [..] >There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less >compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having >compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly >because of the on-board video? > [..] It was more a problem of software and some third party add on hardware not being 32 bit clean or rather 24bit dirty. Some applications used calls to addresses that the ci ROM's didn't like. Basically it was the mentality on the developers side that they could use those last 8 addressing bits for whatever they chose, since Apple wasn't using them. Again, this was only a select few developers. And since the IIci was the first end-user available mac with 32bit clean ROM, it was the first one to hit those developers up side the head and say 'Hey, stop using those bits, I need them.' Blacksheep -- Senior Systems Engineer woods@convex.com Convex is not my employer-Therefore they are not responsible for what I say.